From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture
United States Supreme Court
553 U.S. 591 (2008)
Facts
Anup Engquist (plaintiff) was an international food-service specialist for the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) (defendant). Engquist had difficulty working with another ODA employee, Joseph Hyatt, and repeatedly complained to their supervisor, Norma Corristan, about Hyatt. Corristan responded by sending Hyatt to diversity and anger-management training. John Szczepanski, an assistant director of the ODA, had supervisory authority over Corristan, Hyatt, and Engquist. Szczepanski told a client that he was unable to control Engquist and that he was going to get rid of both Engquist and Corristan. Szczepanski then chose Hyatt for a managerial position despite Engquist’s superior qualifications for the job. Shortly thereafter, Szczepanski eliminated Corristan’s position during a round of budget cuts and then eliminated Engquist’s role as part of a reorganization. Engquist sued the ODA, alleging violations of various state and federal employment laws. Engquist also brought what was known as a class-of-one equal-protection claim, alleging that she was discharged not because she was a member of a particular class but instead for arbitrary, vindictive, and malicious reasons. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Engquist on the class-of-one claim. The appellate court reversed, and Engquist appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Roberts, C.J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 602,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
